International Trade and World Market

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    TikTok, Shein and Other Companies Distance Themselves From China

    by

    Companies are moving headquarters and factories outside the country and cleaving off their Chinese businesses. It’s not clear the strategy will work.As it expanded internationally, Shein, the rapidly growing fast fashion app, progressively cut ties to its home country, China. It moved its headquarters to Singapore and de-registered its original company in Nanjing. It set up operations in Ireland and Indiana, and hired Washington lobbyists to highlight its U.S. expansion plans as it prepares for a potential initial public offering this year.Yet the clothing retailer can’t shake the focus on its ties with China. Along with other brands like the viral social app TikTok and shopping app Temu, Shein has become a target of American lawmakers in both parties. Politicians are accusing the company of making its clothes with fabric made with forced labor and calling it a tool of the Chinese Communist Party — claims that Shein denies.“No one should be fooled by Shein’s efforts to cover its tracks,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, wrote in a letter to other lawmakers this month.As relations between the United States and China turn increasingly rocky, some of China’s most entrepreneurial brands have taken steps to distance themselves from their home country. They have set up new factories and headquarters outside China to serve the United States and other foreign markets, emphasized their foreign ties and scrubbed any mention of “China” from their corporate websites.TikTok has set up headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore, and invested in new U.S. operations that it says will wall off its American user data from its parent company, ByteDance. Temu has established a headquarters in Boston, and its parent company, PDD Holdings, has moved its headquarters from China to Ireland.Chinese solar companies have set up factories outside China to avoid U.S. tariffs on solar panels from China and limit their exposure to Xinjiang, a region that the United States now bars imports from because of its use of forced labor.JinkoSolar, a behemoth that produces one in 10 solar modules installed globally, has set up a supply chain entirely outside China to make goods for the United States.Other companies, including those that are foreign-owned, are building walls between their Chinese operations and their global businesses, judging that this is the best way to avoid running afoul of new restrictions or risks to their reputation.Sequoia Capital, the venture capital firm, said last week that it would split its global business into three independent partnerships, spinning off unique entities for China and India.Shein said in a statement that it was “a multinational company with diversified operations around the world and customers in 150 markets, and we make all business decisions with that in mind.” The company said it had zero tolerance for forced labor, did not source cotton from Xinjiang and fully complied with all U.S. tax and trade laws.A spokesperson for TikTok said that the Chinese Communist Party had neither direct nor indirect control of ByteDance or TikTok, and that ByteDance was a private, global company with offices around the world.“Roughly 60 percent of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as BlackRock and General Atlantic, and its C.E.O. resides in Singapore,” said Brooke Oberwetter, a spokesperson.Temu did not respond to requests for comment.Analysts said companies were being driven out of China by a variety of motivations, including better access to foreign customers and an escape from the risk of a crackdown by the Chinese authorities.Some companies have more practical concerns, like reducing their costs for labor and shipping, lowering their tax bills or shedding the shoddy reputation that American buyers continue to associate with goods made in China, said Shay Luo, a principal at the consulting firm Kearney who studies supply chains.But a wave of tougher restrictions in the United States on doing business with China appears to be having an effect, too.Research by Altana, a supply chain technology company, shows that since 2016, new regulations, customs enforcement actions and trade policies that hurt Chinese exports to the United States were followed by “adaptive behavior,” like setting up new subsidiaries outside China, said Evan Smith, the company’s chief executive.For Chinese companies, going global is not a new phenomenon. The Chinese government initiated a “go out” policy at the turn of the century to encourage state-owned enterprises to invest abroad to gain overseas markets, natural resources and technology.Private companies like the electronics firm Lenovo, the appliance maker Haier and the e-commerce giant Alibaba soon followed, seeking investment targets and new customers.As tensions between the United States and China have risen in recent years, investment flows between the countries have slowed. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods put in place by President Donald J. Trump and maintained by President Biden encouraged companies to move manufacturing from China to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Mexico. The pandemic, which halted factories in China and raised costs for moving goods across the ocean, accelerated the trend.International companies are now increasingly adopting a “China plus one” model of securing an additional source of goods in another country in case of supply interruptions in China. Chinese companies, too, are following this practice, Ms. Luo said.In the 12 months that ended in April, the share of imports to the United States from China reached its lowest level since 2006.“It is definitely a rational strategy for these companies to offshore, to move manufacturing or their headquarters to a third country,” said Roselyn Hsueh, an associate professor of political science at Temple University.In addition to tariffs and the ban on products from the Xinjiang region, the United States has imposed new restrictions on trade in technology and tougher security reviews for Chinese investments.The Chinese government, too, is clamping down on the transfer of data and currency outside the country, and it has squashed some Chinese companies’ efforts to list their stocks on American exchanges because of such concerns.Beijing has detained and harassed top tech executives, and foreign consulting firms. And its draconian lockdowns during the pandemic made clear to businesses that they operate in China at the mercy of the government.“Companies like Shein and TikTok move overseas both to reduce their U.S. regulatory and reputational risk, but also to reduce the likelihood that their founders and staff get intimidated or arrested by Chinese officials,” said Isaac Stone Fish, the chief executive of Strategy Risks, a consultant on corporate exposure to China.But companies like Shein and Temu still source nearly all of their products from China, and it’s not clear that the changes the Chinese companies are making to their businesses have done much to lower the heat.The opposition to these companies in Washington is being fueled by an incendiary combination of legitimate concerns over national security and forced labor, and the political appeal of appearing tough on China. It also appears to be driven by the opposition of certain competitors to these services, which are now some of the most downloaded apps in the United States.Shou Chew, the chief executive of TikTok, was questioned at a House hearing in March over whether the social app would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesIn March, a group called Shut Down Shein sprang up to pressure Congress to crack down on the retailer. The group, which has hired five lobbyists with the firm Actum, declined to disclose who is funding its campaign.In a five-hour hearing in March, lawmakers grilled TikTok’s chief executive over whether it would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government, or censor the information broadcast to young Americans. Legislation is being considered that could permanently ban the app.Some lawmakers are arguing that JinkoSolar’s U.S.-made panels should not be eligible for government tax credits, and, for reasons that have not yet been disclosed, the company’s Florida factory was raided by customs officials last month.State governments, which have often been more welcoming to Chinese investment, are also growing more hostile. In January, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor of Virginia, blocked a deal for Ford Motor to set up a factory using technology from a Chinese battery maker, Contemporary Amperex Technology, calling it a “Trojan-horse relationship.”A House committee set up to examine economic and security competition with China is investigating the ties that Temu and Shein have with forced labor in China, and lawmakers are calling for Shein to be audited before its I.P.O.“The message of our investigation of Shein, Temu, Adidas and Nike is clear: Either ensure your supply chains are clean — no matter how difficult it is — or get out of countries like China implicated in forced labor,” Representative Mike Gallagher, the Republican chair of the committee, said in a statement.An investigation by Bloomberg in November found that some of Shein’s clothes were made with cotton grown in Xinjiang. In a statement, Shein said it had “built a four-step approach to ensure compliance” with the law, including a “code of conduct, independent audits, robust tracing technology and third-party testing.Jordyn Holman More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Says Bid to Decouple From China Would Be ‘Disastrous’

    by

    The Treasury secretary, speaking to a House committee, said trade and investment were crucial in U.S.-Chinese relations.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Tuesday that it would be a mistake for the United States to try to “decouple” from China and called for deepening economic ties between the world’s two largest economies.The comments came as the Biden administration has been seeking to improve relations with China, which faced a setback this year when a Chinese surveillance balloon was found flying across the United States. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is planning to travel to Beijing next week, and Ms. Yellen hopes to make a trip there soon.Speaking at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Ms. Yellen made clear that she believes the economic relationship with China is critical.“I think we gain and China gains from trade and investment that is as open as possible, and it would be disastrous for us to attempt to decouple from China,” Ms. Yellen said.The United States maintains tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports, and the Biden administration is developing new restrictions on how U.S. companies can invest in China. But Ms. Yellen said that the United States intended only to “de-risk” the relationship and that it had no intention of inflicting economic harm on China.“I certainly do not think it is in our interest to stifle the economic progress of the Chinese people,” Ms. Yellen said. “China has succeeded in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and I think that’s something that we should applaud.”Although she struck an accommodating tone, Ms. Yellen also laid out concerns likely to arise in meetings with her Chinese counterparts.Because of national security concerns, she said, the administration is considering restrictions on American private equity firms’ investments in Chinese firms that have connections with China’s military. She also said the Treasury Department was examining additional sanctions on China in response to human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.In recent months, the United States has been ratcheting up pressure on China to provide debt relief to Zambia and other developing countries. Ms. Yellen lamented that despite some signs of a willingness to cooperate and help poor countries avoid defaults, China had not done enough. She emphasized a growing need for international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to help the most vulnerable economies.“These institutions reflect American values,” Ms. Yellen said. “It serves as an important counterweight to nontransparent, unsustainable lending from others like China.”Asked about Ms. Yellen’s comments on Tuesday, Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, rejected the idea that the I.M.F. or the World Bank is meant to further American interests.“The I.M.F. is not the I.M.F. of the United States, nor is the World Bank for that matter,” he said. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Energy Tax Credits, Meant to Help U.S. Suppliers, May Be Hard to Get

    by

    The Inflation Reduction Act contains tax breaks for solar and wind companies to buy American equipment. Qualifying won’t be easy.In April, Vice President Kamala Harris visited Qcells, a solar panel manufacturing facility in Dalton, Ga., to announce an early triumph of the Inflation Reduction Act: Summit Ridge Energy, one of the nation’s largest developers of community solar projects, would purchase 2.5 million U.S.-made solar panels.Subsidies under the new law brought the price in line with that of imported panels, allowing the companies to fight climate change and promote American manufacturing in one fell swoop.A month later, the Treasury Department issued guidance that functionally would require the solar cells — not just the panels — to be made in the United States for Summit Ridge to have confidence that it will get its 10 percent tax credit on installations that use them. Qcells won’t be able to produce cells until late 2024, sending Summit Ridge scrambling to find cheaper components for projects currently in its pipeline.“There’s not a single solar manufacturer who fully qualifies for this at this moment in time, which makes it difficult and is actually starting to cool investment,” said Leslie Elder, Summit Ridge’s vice president of political and regulatory affairs. “Now we have to re-evaluate based on what can pencil.”On paper, the Inflation Reduction Act is transformative for electricity generation in the United States.The law offers tax credits that could cover up to 70 percent of a renewable energy project’s cost if it checks several boxes meant to support American workers and communities. A new analysis finds that those incentives more than offset the additional expense associated with using domestically produced goods and paying prevailing wages.But guidance rolling out from the Biden administration — presaging formal rules — has raised alarm among energy companies that some of the credits might be difficult if not impossible to use, at least in the near term. The resulting frustration is emblematic of the current stage of climate action: an eye-straining haze of technical rule-making that reflects a tension between urgency and ensuring that the benefits of the energy transition are widely shared.Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the Treasury, expressed confidence that in combination, the rules would strike that balance.“We have a great deal of clarity about the strategic objectives, and we’re already seeing the impact of that in terms of the economy,” Mr. Adeyemo said. “It isn’t about any one rule. It’s about an ecosystem of rules that have been created under the I.R.A. that put us in a position to go from a country that had underinvested in the clean energy transition to being at the head of the pack.”The analysis, overseen by professors at Princeton and Dartmouth experienced in modeling climate policy’s effects, finds that the incentive aimed at U.S. manufacturers makes domestic solar panels more than 30 percent less costly to produce than imports. With incentives claimed by clean energy developers that meet labor standards and use domestic content, the total cost of generating utility-scale solar electricity could be lowered by 68 percent, and onshore wind energy by 77 percent.The study was funded by the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership of unions and environmental groups. The organization has championed elements of the Biden administration’s climate agenda that support domestic manufacturing, particularly in places hurt by globalization, automation and the decline of fossil fuels.“Until now, the moral case and the business case did not always align,” said Ben Beachy, the organization’s vice president for industrial policy. “The I.R.A. changes that by offering developers an airtight business case for supporting high-paying jobs and a stronger and fairer U.S. manufacturing base.”The impact of the climate law is already evident, with announcements of 47 new plants to make batteries, solar panels and wind turbines since it was passed, according to American Clean Power, a trade association. Other analyses, including a paper by economists and engineers at the Electric Power Research Institute, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the University of California, Berkeley, found that the law would encourage more low-emissions projects eligible for uncapped tax credits than anticipated, potentially making the costs to the government substantially higher than earlier estimates.A recent study found that federal incentives could reduce the total cost of utility-scale onshore wind energy generation by 77 percent.Alisha Jucevic for The New York TimesBut the BlueGreen Alliance’s study shows significant uncertainty about the impact of rising material costs as demand for domestically sourced aluminum, steel and concrete increases, and doesn’t account for profits manufacturers might command before more competition enters the market. It also projects four million more jobs will be available in wind and solar energy by 2035 than if the I.R.A. hadn’t passed — more than eight times the current employment base — but does not model whether labor supply will measure up.“I find some of their key results to be highly optimistic, and that they likely underestimate some of the economywide costs associated with this scale of clean energy deployment,” said Daniel Raimi, a fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future who reviewed the analysis.At the same time, clean energy companies are digesting the administration’s guidance on how the tax credits will be allocated, and finding some unworkable in ways that may slow deployment.Take the bonus of up to 20 percent for developers that locate projects in low-income communities (which is separate from a bonus of 10 percent for locating in areas struggling with the transition away from fossil fuels). The Treasury Department, wanting to ensure that credits give rise to projects that wouldn’t otherwise happen, will award them only to projects not yet completed. Solar installers would have to sell the system and then wait to see if they got the credit before starting work.“I think we will lose some development in low-income communities this year because of the way that credit has been constructed,” said Sean Gallagher, a vice president for policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. “Either the developer is going to absorb that difference, or they’ll have to go back to the customer to renegotiate the price, or the project’s not going to happen.”An even thornier issue is the extra 10 percent for using domestically manufactured components. Manufacturers are concerned that while effectively requiring solar cells to be made in the United States to qualify for the credit, the Treasury Department did not require their foundational component — the wafer, a thin slice of silicon that conducts energy — to be domestically produced. That could allow Chinese factories to continue to dominate a key part of the supply chain.“The prices they’re ultimately getting from the developers are undermined because the Chinese wafer manufacturers can crash the prices,” said Mike Carr, the executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America Coalition.Developers are upset because receiving the credit will, in most cases, require a complex calculation of the cost of each component to reach the threshold of 40 percent U.S.-produced content, and manufacturers are loath to disclose sensitive pricing information. Many also expected a more gradual phase-in process that would allow some of the current U.S. factory output to qualify for the credit, while planning for more stringent requirements.Brett Bouchy is the chief executive of Freedom Forever, a residential solar installation company that did more than $1 billion in business last year. He had planned to build a solar module and cell manufacturing plant in Arizona, which would cost $100 million and employ 1,000 people, to supply his own operations. After the guidance came out, he halted those plans — he couldn’t be confident his panels would qualify for the domestic content credit on top of the 7 cents per watt available to manufacturers.“We cannot make it work,” Mr. Bouchy said. “There is no benefit, because that 7 cents is eaten up with increased U.S. labor costs. Why would you invest $100 million when you really can’t get a return?”Those who support the administration’s approach emphasize that the bonus tax credits are just that: bonuses, not requirements, to offset costs associated with going the extra mile. Developers already get a 30 percent base incentive — and at least 10 years of certainty — for paying prevailing wages and employing apprentices, which most don’t consider very difficult.Todd Tucker, the director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, said high standards were necessary to make investors confident that new U.S. factories would have enough orders to stay in business.“Once you start indicating that you’re going to allow some flexibility, that, by definition, softens the market signal,” he said.The Treasury Department is still taking comments on the rules for all of the credits, and industry trade associations are vying to change them. Even so, most companies say that the Inflation Reduction Act overall is a powerful force for decarbonization, and that companies have a strong incentive to seek every credit it allows.“It’s amazing how focusing this is for the mind, when people start throwing these kinds of dollars around,” said Sheldon Kimber, the chief executive of Intersect Power, a clean energy developer. “We’re being asked to do a hard thing, but there’s a lot of money in it for us.” More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    World Bank Projects Weak Global Growth Amid Rising Interest Rates

    by

    A new report projects that economic growth will slow this year and remain weak in 2024.The World Bank said on Tuesday that the global economy remained in a “precarious state” and warned of sluggish growth this year and next as rising interest rates slow consumer spending and business investment, and threaten the stability of the financial system.The bank’s tepid forecasts in its latest Global Economic Prospects report highlight the predicament that global policymakers face as they try to corral stubborn inflation by raising interest rates while grappling with the aftermath of the pandemic and continuing supply chain disruptions stemming from the war in Ukraine.The World Bank projected that global growth would slow to 2.1 percent this year from 3.1 percent in 2022. That is slightly stronger than its forecast of 1.7 percent in January, but in 2024 output is now expected to rise to 2.4 percent, weaker than the bank’s previous prediction of 2.7 percent.“Rays of sunshine in the global economy we saw earlier in the year have been fading, and gray days likely lie ahead,” said Ayhan Kose, deputy chief economist at the World Bank Group.Mr. Kose said that the world economy was experiencing a “sharp, synchronized global slowdown” and that 65 percent of countries would experience slower growth this year than last. A decade of poor fiscal management in low-income countries that relied on borrowed money is compounding the problem. According to the World Bank, 14 of 28 low-income countries are in debt distress or at a high risk of debt distress.Optimism about an economic rebound this year has been dampened by recent stress in the banking sectors in the United States and Europe, which resulted in the biggest bank failures since the 2008 financial crisis. Concerns about the health of the banking industry have prompted many lenders to pull back on providing credit to businesses and individuals, a phenomenon that the World Bank said was likely to further weigh down growth.The bank also warned that rising borrowing costs in rich countries — including the United States, where overnight interest rates have topped 5 percent for the first time in 15 years — posed an additional headwind for the world’s poorest economies.The most vulnerable economies, the report warned, are facing greater risk of financial crises as a result of rising rates. Higher interest rates make it more expensive for developing countries to service their loan payments and, if their currencies depreciate, to import food.In addition to the risks posed by rising interest rates, the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine have combined to reverse decades of progress in global poverty reduction. The World Bank estimated on Tuesday that in 2024, incomes in the poorest countries would be 6 percent lower than in 2019.“Emerging market and developing economies today are struggling just to cope — deprived of the wherewithal to create jobs and deliver essential services to their most vulnerable citizens,” the report said.The World Bank sees widespread slowdowns in advanced economies, too. In the United States, it projects 1.1 percent growth this year and 0.8 percent in 2024.China is a notable exception to that trend, and the reopening of its economy after years of strict Covid-19 lockdowns is propping up global growth. The bank projects that the Chinese economy will grow 5.6 percent this year and 4.6 percent next year.Inflation is expected to continue to moderate this year, but the World Bank expects that prices will remain above central bank targets in many countries throughout 2024. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    For Turkey, Erdogan Victory Brings More Risky Economic Policy

    by

    The Turkish lira has hit a new low, and analysts see few improvements ahead as re-elected President Erdogan pursues unconventional economic policies.Since winning re-election, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has publicly doubled down on his idiosyncratic economic policies.“If anyone can do this, I can do it,” he declared in a victory speech last Sunday, referring to his ability to solve the country’s calamitous economic problems.His brash confidence is not widely shared by most analysts and economists.The Turkish lira dropped to a record low against the dollar this week, and foreign investors have been disheartened by the president’s refusal to stray from what is widely considered to be an eccentric economic course.Instead of combating dizzying inflation by raising interest rates and making borrowing more expensive — as most economists recommend — Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly lowered rates. He argues that cheap credit will boost manufacturing and exports.But his strategy is also fueling inflation, now running at an annual rate of 44 percent, and eroding the value of the Turkish lira. Attempts by the government to prop up the faltering currency have drained the dwindling pool of foreign reserves.As the lira’s value drops, the price of imported goods — like medicine, energy, fertilizer and automobile parts — rises, making it more expensive for consumers to afford daily costs. And it raises the size of debt payments for businesses and households that have borrowed money from foreign lenders.The national budget is also coming under increasing strains. The destructive earthquakes in February that ripped up swaths of southern Turkey are estimated to have caused more than a billion dollars in damage, roughly 9 percent of the country’s annual economic output.At the same time, Mr. Erdogan went on a pre-election spending spree to attract voters, increasing salaries for public sector workers and payouts for retirees and offering households a month of free natural gas. The expenditures pushed up growth, but economists fear that such outlays will feed inflation.President Erdogan in Istanbul last month. Foreign investors have been disheartened by his refusal to stray from what is widely considered to be an eccentric economic course.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesAn effort to encourage Turks to keep their savings in lira by guaranteeing their balances against currency depreciations further adds to the government’s potential liabilities.Critics of the president’s economic approach were somewhat heartened by reports that Mr. Erdogan is expected this weekend to appoint Mehmet Simsek, a former finance minister and deputy prime minister, to the cabinet. Mr. Simsek is well thought of in financial circles and has previously supported a tighter monetary policy.“What Turkey really needs now is more exports and more foreign direct investment, and for that you have to send a signal,” said Henri Barkey, an international relations professor at Lehigh University. One signal could be Mr. Simsek’s appointment, he said.Mr. Barkey argues that Mr. Erdogan will have no choice but to make a U-turn on policy by winter, when energy import costs rise and some debt payments are due.Others are more skeptical that Mr. Erdogan will back down from his insistence that high interest rates fuel inflation. Kadri Tastan, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a public policy think tank based in Brussels, said that regardless of the cabinet’s makeup, he didn’t believe a policy turnaround was imminent.“I’m quite pessimistic about an enormous change, of course,” he said.To deal with the large external deficit and depleted central bank reserves, Mr. Erdogan has been relying on allies like Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to help bolster its reserves by depositing dollars with the central bank or extending payment deadlines and discounts for imported goods like natural gas.In a note to investors this week, Capital Economics wrote that any optimism about a policy shift is likely to be short-lived: “While policymakers like Simsek would probably pursue more restrained fiscal policy than we had envisaged, we doubt Erdogan would give the central bank license to hike policy rates to restore balance to the economy.”Turkey’s more than $900 billion economy makes it the eighth largest in Europe. And Mr. Erdogan’s efforts to position himself as a power broker between Russia and the European allies since the war in Ukraine began has further underscored Turkey’s geopolitical influence.Mr. Erdogan, who has been in power for two decades, built his electoral success on growth-oriented policies that lifted millions of Turks into the middle class. But the pumped-up expansion wasn’t sustainable.As the lira’s value drops, the price of imported goods rises.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe borrowing frenzy drove up prices, spurring a cost-of-living crisis. Still, Mr. Erdogan persisted in lowering interest rates and fired central bank chiefs who disagreed with him. The pandemic exacerbated problems by reducing demand for Turkish exports and limiting tourism, a large source of income.Mr. Erdogan is likely to keep up his expansionary policies until the next local elections take place next year. Until then, Hakan Kara, the former chief economist of the Central Bank of Turkey, said the country would probably just “muddle through.”“Turkish authorities will have to make tough decisions after the local elections, as something has to give in eventually,” Mr. Kara said. “Turkey has to either switch back to conventional policies, or further deviate from the free market economy where the central authority manages the economy through micro-control measures.”“In either case,” he added, “the adjustment is likely to be painful.” More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Officials Announce Indo-Pacific Trade Deal, Clashing With Industry Groups

    by

    The United States announced a deal to coordinate supply chains with allies, but prominent business groups said the deal fell short on reducing tariffs and other trade barriers.The Biden administration announced Saturday that it had reached an agreement with 13 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to coordinate supply chains, in an effort to lessen the countries’ dependence on China for critical products and allow them to better weather crises like wars, pandemics and climate change.The supply chain agreement is the first result of the administration’s trade initiative in the region, called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Negotiations are continuing for the other three pillars of the agreement, which focus on facilitating trade and improving conditions for workers, expanding the use of clean energy, and reforming tax structures and fighting corruption.Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said the supply chain agreement would deepen America’s economic cooperation with partners in the Indo-Pacific region, helping American companies do business there and making the United States more competitive globally.“Bottom line is, this is about increasing the U.S. economic presence in the region,” she said in a call with reporters Thursday.But prominent business groups expressed reservations about the Indo-Pacific deal, and on Friday, more than 30 of them sent a public letter to the administration saying the negotiations were leaving out traditional U.S. trade priorities that could help American exporters. That included lowering tariffs charged on their goods but also limiting other regulatory barriers to trade and establishing stronger intellectual property protections.The Biden administration says that past trade deals with those provisions have encouraged outsourcing and hurt American workers. Business leaders are arguing that without them, the Indo-Pacific deal will ultimately have little impact on the way these countries do business.Regulatory barriers to trade undermine efforts to strengthen supply chains, potentially sapping the effectiveness of the administration’s new agreement, the business groups’ letter said. It also expressed concern that the administration was not pushing for digital trade rules.“We are growing increasingly concerned that the content and direction of the administration’s proposals for the talks risk not only failing to deliver meaningful strategic and commercial outcomes but also endangering U.S. trade and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond,” said the letter, which was signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and other groups.In remarks Saturday in Detroit, where she was meeting with trade ministers from the participating countries, Ms. Raimondo said the group’s characterization of the deal was “flatly wrong and just reflects a misunderstanding of what the I.P.E.F. is and what it isn’t.”The United States began negotiations for a more traditional trade deal in the Pacific during the Obama administration, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deal was designed to strengthen America’s commercial ties in the Pacific, as a bulwark to China’s growing influence over the region. It cut tariffs on auto parts and agricultural products and established stronger intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals, among many other changes.But the Trans-Pacific Partnership created deep divisions among both Republicans and Democrats, with some politicians in both parties arguing it would hollow out American industry. Former President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States from that deal, and Japan, Australia and other members put the agreement into effect without the United States.The Indo-Pacific Framework includes some of the same countries as the Pacific deal, as well as India, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. But the Biden administration argues that the agreement is designed to better protect American workers and the environment.“The I.P.E.F. is not a traditional trade deal,” Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, said Saturday in Detroit. “It is our vision, our new vision for how our economies can collaborate to deliver real opportunities for our people.”“We’re not just trying to maximize the efficiencies of globalization,” Ms. Tai added. “We’re trying to promote sustainability, resilience and inclusiveness.”Ed Gresser, the director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, said allies like Japan were participating in the new deal but still trying to convince the United States to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership.There is good will internationally toward the Biden administration, Mr. Gresser added, but also confusion about what a trade agreement would mean without market access.Countries have a long history of creating trade and investment frameworks that fall short of traditional trade deals, he said, but “they’re generally not seen as very ambitious things.” More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S.-Made Technology Is Flowing to Sanctioned Russian Airlines

    by

    Russian customs data shows that millions of dollars of aircraft parts made by Boeing, Airbus and others were sent to Russia last year despite sanctions.Last August, Oleg Patsulya, a Russian citizen living near Miami, emailed a Russian airline that had been cut off from Western technology and materials with a tempting offer.He could help circumvent the global sanctions imposed on Rossiya Airlines after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by shuffling the aircraft parts and electronics that it so desperately needed through a network of companies based in Florida, Turkey and Russia.“In light of the sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation, we have been successfully solving challenges at hand,” Mr. Patsulya wrote, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in Arizona.Mr. Patsulya and his business partner were arrested Thursday on charges of violating U.S. export controls and international money laundering in a case that illustrates the global networks that are trying to help Russia bypass the most expansive technological controls in history.Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has acted in partnership with nearly 40 other governments to impose sanctions on Russia, including limits on Moscow’s access to weapons, computer chips, aircraft parts and other products needed to fuel its economy and its war. The sanctions also applied to Russian airlines including Aeroflot, its subsidiary Rossiya and others.But despite these far-reaching sanctions, thousands of shipments of aircraft parts were successfully sent into Russia last year, according to a trove of Russian customs data obtained by The New York Times.The data, which was compiled and analyzed by Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator, shows that tens of millions of dollars of aircraft parts were sent to Russian airlines explicitly sanctioned by the Biden administration, including to Rossiya Airlines, Aeroflot, Ural Airlines, S7 Airlines, Utair Aviation and Pobeda Airlines.Those shipments were made possible by illicit networks like Mr. Patsulya’s, which have sprung up to try to bypass the restrictions by shuffling goods through a series of straw buyers, often in the Middle East and Asia.For instance, dozens of shipments of copper wires, bolts, graphite and other parts marked as made in the United States by Boeing slipped into the warehouses of Aeroflot last year. They traversed obscure trading companies, free-trade zones and industrial parks in the United Arab Emirates and China, and then traveled into Russia, to help patch up Aeroflot’s dilapidated fleet.The data captures more than 5,000 individual shipments of aircraft parts into Russia over a period of eight months in 2022, from simple screws to a Honeywell-branded aircraft engine starter valued at $290,000.In all, it shows that $14.4 million of U.S.-made aircraft parts were sent into Russia during the eight months, including $8.9 million of parts that are described as being manufactured or trademarked by the U.S. plane maker Boeing and sold into Russia via third parties.Boeing said it had fully complied with U.S. sanctions and had suspended providing parts, maintenance and technical support for customers in Russia in early 2022. Experts in the aviation supply chain said the parts probably came from a variety of sources, such as existing overseas stocks from airlines and repair facilities or resellers who trade in scrapped parts.A Boeing plant in Renton, Wash. Millions of dollars of parts described as being manufactured or trademarked by the U.S. plane maker were sold into Russia via third parties.Grant Hindsley for The New York TimesMost of the products were routed through countries like the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, China and the Maldives, according to the data. But a handful of shipments — including to Rossiya — were sent directly from the United States or Europe.The shipments also increased over the course of last year as Russia recruited global businesses to help it bypass the sanctions. The trend suggests that “networks for evading sanctions took time to establish during the immediate post-export-control scramble but are now in a position to help Russian airlines source some key parts,” said William George, the director of research at Import Genius.The Russian nationals taken into custody on Thursday began setting up their scheme last May to send aircraft parts from the United States to Russia in violation of export regulations, according to the criminal complaint.The men are accused of fielding requests for parts, including expensive brake systems for a Boeing 737, from at least three Russian airlines, including two that had been strictly barred from purchasing U.S.-made products through a so-called temporary denial order issued by the Commerce Department. F.B.I. agents raided a condo owned by the men’s company in the Trump Towers in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., on Thursday, The Miami Herald reported.Lawyers for the men did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Despite the level of sanctions evasion, airplane shipments into Russia remain significantly lower than before the war. U.S. officials say Russian airlines have been forced to cannibalize planes, breaking them down for spare parts to keep others in operation, as well as turning to Iran for maintenance and parts.Russia’s imports of aircraft and aircraft parts fell from $3.45 billion annually before the invasion to only about $286 million afterward, according to The Observatory of Economic Complexity, a data visualization platform that explores global trade dynamics.According to Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington nonprofit, China has been the leading overall exporter of parts for aircraft, spacecraft and drones to Russia since the invasion, accounting for about half of all shipments, followed by India. The number of single-aisle planes in use in Russia fell about 16 percent from the summer of 2021 to the summer of 2022, after the invasion, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. The number of larger twin-aisle planes, often used on international routes, was down about 40 percent.Aviation experts say it will become more challenging for Russian airlines to continue flying planes without access to Western suppliers and help from Boeing and Airbus. The manufacturers regularly consult with airlines to assess any damage and strictly control access to technical documentation used by mechanics.But for now, Russian airlines have been kept alive with the help of international shipments and the use of hundreds of foreign jets that were stranded there after the war began.Tens of thousands of flights are expected to crisscross Russia this month, according to schedules published by Cirium. More than 21,000 flights — over half of them operated by Russian airlines — are expected to carry passengers to and from countries in Central Asia, as well as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, China and Thailand.Half a dozen export control lawyers and former government officials consulted by The New York Times said that many of the shipments in the Import Genius data likely violated sanctions, but that plane makers like Boeing or Airbus were not necessarily at fault. The aviation supply chain is complex and global, and the parts could have come from a variety of sources.“There is pretty clearly a violation,” said William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who oversaw export controls during the Clinton administration. “Less clear is the guilty party.”Aircraft parts originating in the European Union, including those marked as being manufactured or trademarked by Airbus, were also shipped into Russia last year, according to the data.Working on an Airbus A320 plane at a hangar in Haikou, China, in May. Airbus parts were also shipped into Russia last year.Zhang Liyun/Xinhua, via Getty ImagesJustin Dubon, a spokesman for Airbus, said that the company keeps track of genuine parts and documentation provided to its customers and conducts due diligence on all parties requesting spare parts. Restrictions in the United States and Europe mean that “there is no legal way that genuine aircraft parts, documentation and services can get to Russian carriers,” he said.U.S. restrictions technically allow companies to apply for a special license to continue sending products to Russian carriers for “safety of flight” reasons, but both Boeing and Airbus said that they had neither sought nor received such a license. In addition, Airbus said that E.U. laws prevent it from shipping such goods to Russia, regardless of U.S. licensing.Current and former U.S. officials say that some shipments into Russia are to be expected. Kevin Wolf, a partner at the law firm Akin Gump who oversaw export controls during the Obama administration, said the restrictions “can never block everything,” but that the rules were still significantly degrading Russia’s capabilities.He added that the scope of the new rules still exceed current methods of tracking and enforcement in other allied countries. Until the invasion of Ukraine, trade in aircraft parts was mostly unrestricted by the United States and other countries, except to Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.“It’s improving,” Mr. Wolf said, “but it’s still way, way behind.”Compared with other countries that mostly limit their scrutiny to goods crossing their own borders, the United States is unparalleled in its attempt to police commerce around the world.In the past three years, the United States has imposed new technology restrictions for Russia, China and Iran that apply extraterritorially: Products made in the United States, or in foreign countries with the help of American components or technology, are subject to U.S. rules even when changing hands on the other side of the world.Both the United States and the European Union have been ramping up penalties for companies that violate sanctions, and dispatching officials to countries like Kazakhstan to try to persuade them to clamp down on shipments to Russia through their territory. The U.S. government has nine export control officers stationed in Istanbul, Beijing and other locations to trace shipments of sensitive products, and it is setting up three more offices.But providing parts can be a lucrative business. James Disalvatore, an associate director at Kharon, a data and analytics firm that has been monitoring Russia’s efforts to bypass sanctions, said the value of some aircraft parts imported by Russian airlines since the invasion had risen fourfold or more.“I don’t think there’s any secret what’s going on,” said Gary Stanley, a trade compliance expert who advises businesses in aerospace and other industries. “How long have we had Cuban sanctions? How long have we had North Korean sanctions? How long have we had Iranian sanctions? It never seems to put these folks out of business.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Solar Makers Criticize Biden’s Tax Credits as Too Lax on China

    by

    U.S.-based manufacturers of solar products say rules issued by the Biden administration on Friday will “cement China’s dominance” over the solar industryBiden administration rules released on Friday that will determine which companies and manufacturers can benefit from new solar industry tax credits are being criticized by U.S.-based makers of solar products, who say the guidelines do not go far enough to try to lure manufacturing back from China.The rules stem from President Biden’s sweeping clean energy bill, which offers a mix of tax credits and other incentives to try and spur the construction of more solar factories in the United States and reduce the country’s reliance on China for clean energy goods needed to mitigate climate change.The Treasury Department, in guidance issued on Friday, said it would offer a 10 percent additional tax credit for facilities assembling solar panels in the United States, even if they import the silicon wafers used to make those panels from foreign countries. Under the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, solar and wind farms can apply for a 30 percent tax credit on the costs of their facilities.Senior administration officials told reporters on Thursday that they were trying to take a balanced approach, one that leaned toward forcing supply chains to return to the United States. But China’s dominance of the global solar industry has created a tricky calculus for the Biden administration, which wants to promote U.S. manufacturing of solar products but also ensure a plentiful supply of low-cost solar panels to reduce carbon emissions.The officials said that the Biden administration would have the leeway to change the rules when American supply chains become stronger.“The domestic content bonus under the Inflation Reduction Act will boost American manufacturing, including in iron and steel, so America’s workers and companies continue to benefit from President Biden’s Investing in America agenda,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement. “These tax credits are key to driving investment and ensuring all Americans share in the growth of the clean energy economy.”Critics said the new rules would not go far enough to give companies incentives to move the solar supply chain out of China.Mike Carr, the executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America Coalition, which includes solar companies with U.S. operations like Hemlock Semiconductor, Wacker Chemie, Qcells and First Solar, called the move “a missed opportunity to build a domestic solar manufacturing supply chain.”“The simple fact is today’s announcement will likely result in the scaling back of planned investments in the critical areas of solar wafer, ingot, and polysilicon production,” he said in a statement. “China is producing 97 percent of the world’s solar wafers — giving them substantial control over both polysilicon and cell production. We fear that this guidance will cement their dominance over these critical pieces of the solar supply chain.”A four-acre solar rooftop in Los Angeles. The Biden administration wants 100 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from carbon-free energy sources by 2035.Mario Tama/Getty ImagesThe Biden administration has set an ambitious goal of generating 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2035, a goal that may require more than doubling the annual pace of solar installations.The United States still relies heavily on Chinese manufacturers for low-cost solar modules, although many Chinese-owned factories now make these goods in Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.China also supplies many of the key components in solar panels, including more than 80 percent of the world’s polysilicon, which most solar panels use to absorb energy from sunlight. And a significant portion of Chinese polysilicon comes from the Xinjiang region, where the U.S. government has banned imports because of concerns over forced labor.Other companies in the solar supply chain, which rely on imported components, were more positive about the Treasury Department’s guidance.Abigail Ross Hopper, the chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the guidance was an important step forward that would “spark a flood of investment in American-made clean energy equipment and components.”“The U.S. solar and storage industry strongly supports onshoring a domestic clean energy supply chain, and today’s guidance will supplement the manufacturing renaissance that began when the historic Inflation Reduction Act passed last summer,” she said.Congressional Republicans have already targeted the Biden administration’s climate legislation, saying that it fails to set tough guidelines against manufacturing in China and that it may funnel federal dollars to Chinese-owned companies that have set up in the United States.The Biden administration is also dispensing funding to build up the semiconductor and electric vehicle battery industries. Guidelines for that money include limits on access to so-called foreign entities of concern, like Chinese-owned companies. But the Inflation Reduction Act does not contain guardrails against federal dollars going to the U.S. operations of Chinese solar companies.In a congressional hearing on April 25, Representative Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointed to the Florida facilities of JinkoSolar, a Chinese-owned manufacturer, as being eligible for federal tax credits.“Work at the plant involves robots placing strings of solar cells — which are largely sourced from China — onto a solar panel base,” a fact sheet released by Mr. Smith said.Mr. Biden has also clashed with domestic solar manufacturers over a separate trade case that would see tariffs imposed on solar products imported from Chinese companies based in Southeast Asia.Mr. Biden’s decision to waive the tariffs for two years angered Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, who said U.S.-based manufacturers deserved more protection. In recent weeks, the House and Senate approved a measure to reverse the president’s decision, which Mr. Biden is expected to veto. More